This invention relates to coin apparatus and more particularly to a totalizer for totalizing the value of coins deposited in a vendor.
The invention involves an improvement on the coin totalizer unit shown in the Schuller U.S. Pat. No. 3,149,709 issued Sept. 22, 1964, which in turn involves modifications on the coin totalizer unit shown in the earlier Schuller U.S. Pat. No. 2,991,867 issued July 11, 1961.
In the coin totalizer shown in U.S. Pat. No. 3,149,709, a ratchet member (165) is advanced in steps by nickels, dimes and quarters falling in nickel, dime and quarter chutes, one step for each five-cent increment, and held in its advanced position against the bias of a ratchet return spring (clock spring 177). The advance is effected via a trip wire (17) driven down by a coin through a distance corresponding to the coin value secured to a pawl carrier carrying a driving pawl (159) engageable with the ratchet on an upward return stroke of the trip wire, which is biased to swing up by a trip wire return spring (clock spring 151). In the original version of this mechanism, the ratchet member had 12 teeth, and the price range of the totalizer was therefore limited to 60 cents. Also, in this original version, the differential between the lowest and highest prices was 55 cents. In a later version, as the prices of vended items increased, the number of teeth was increased to 20 to increase the price range of the unit to $1.00. In this later version, the differential between the lowest and highest prices was still 55 cents.
With continued increase in the price of vended items, it has become necessary further to increase the price range of the totalizer (e.g., up to $1.30), requiring an increase in the number of teeth of the ratchet member, and also to provide for an increased differential between the lowest and highest prices. It was found, however, that increasing the number of teeth created a problem in that it resulted in tighter winding of the ratchet return spring (clock spring 177) at the higher price levels (above $1.00) to the point where the force of this spring overcame the return bias of the trip wire return spring (clock spring 151) and prevented return of the trip wire. The problem cound not be solved simply by utilizing a stronger trip wire return spring, because the trip wire must be capable of swinging down, against the return bias of the trip wire return spring, under the weight of a dime (which is of relatively light weight), and it could not be solved simply by utilizing a weaker ratchet return spring.